onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Trivia guidelines: confirmation issues and possible revamp
Good day everyone! As suggested on Merry's talkpage (Talk:Merry), I believe it is time to discuss the wikia's trivia guidelines - and possibly add / remove certain paragraphs. If you want to participate in the discussion, I recommend reading up on the current trivia rules (if you haven't already: One Piece Encyclopedia:Trivia Guidelines). 12:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC) What's the problem? While the current rules are sufficient enough to explain what kind of trivia we want on articles, they don't make clear if we should allow only confirmed information from Oda (through the SBS or other sources) or also permit interesting observations from editors as well. This causes edit wars on a not very often, but regular basis. What the guideline provides (related paragraphs): | | So on the one hand we have the permission to speculate on possible connections, but on the other hand speculation should be strictly avoided. A double standard that causes irritations. Examples of unconfirmed, but informative trivia. While from Oda confirmed trivia's leave no room for complaints, "observations" from editors sometimes do. Nonetheless, they often provide interesting information. A good example would be Kalifa's trivia section, which contains all 3 "types" of trivia: *Kalifa's birthday was revealed in a SBS Volume 43 to be April 23. This is because Secretary's Day is celebrated on this day. (''Trivia type 1.: ''confirmed by Oda) *Oda has named several female characters after birds. Kalifa seems to be named after the Kalij Pheasant (or in German, "Kalifasan"). (''Trivia type 2.: based on conclusion)'' *Her name might also be a reference to Queen Califia, queen of a legendary tribe of Amazon women who lived in the mythical Island of California. (''Trivia type 3: ''based on speculation, tho informative and backed up by an external link) Possible options so far: #Allowing only confirmed trivia by Oda #Allowing facts confirmed by Oda, along with conclusions based on similiar cases. #Allowing speculation, but backed up with external links and/or reason. (includes Oda and option 2.) #Eliminating the trivia section altogether and merge confirmed information with other sections (appearance, personality etc. - where it fits). Discussion / suggestions I like the fact that this thread was created .. but I dont like the trivia to be voted ( whether something should stay or not ).. it's not supposed to be for most of the time . Frankly, I say option 1 is the way to go. Since speculations (backed up though they may be) may lead to creation of useless pages and unnecessary information within the main section of the articles by the more inexperienced editors. Yatanogarasu 00:44, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :I got a better idea: why don't we just eliminate trivia altogether? Like Zeldapedia doesn't do trivia at all. We can just add all the information from SBS (favorite food, color, etc.) into personality and appearance sections. Any other information can be added into appropriate places or not added at all if not important enough. Yatanogarasu 01:05, May 3, 2011 (UTC) I think that option 2 is the best. The only problem is going to be distinguishing between observation and speculation, since both can have links, either for backup or further information. 01:16, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :Actually it is not that bad. Option 2. basically has an indirect confirmation from Oda, indirect because he never explicitly said it. Like the example above, Oda often names female characters after birds - so it is highly likely that Kalifa is based on one as well (but he never said Kalifa is based on a bird). Option 3, on the other hand, has no such "indirect" connection to Oda. Kalifa stemming from Queen Califia is purely based on observation, since he never said that he names his female characters after famous figures from other media (tho it is obvious that he does). 11:03, May 3, 2011 (UTC) : :Another example for option 2 is Ace. There was a trivia that his surname comes from Bartholomew Portugues which, is really likely, considering all the other characters that have been named after real life pirates, however it is unconfirmed. Panda 11:09, May 3, 2011 (UTC) I dont know which option this goes into , but I'm sure u can add any trivia to that section if the reference is provided and is trivial enough :) Option one is the best way to go. Eliminating trivia is completely is a really horrible idea. I'll be back in two days. SeaTerror 06:36, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Option 2 and 3 would effectively change nothing. Option 4 is a bad idea, as there are some things that just dont belong in anything but trivia. Option 1, I'm just going to go with the example I used on merrys talk page again. Donquixote Doflamingo. It's not confirmed, but it obviously comes from that. Option 1 would completely eliminate trivia like this and that's not good. Panda 10:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Excatly , Panda is right we cant have a specific guideline that tells wether something is should be trivial or not .. ..Angel used to do it correctly among us ... now I'm sure of one thing though : the existing triva cannot fit into any of those options . :@Panda :Option 2 would change a lot, basically removing all trivia that has no direct or indirect confirmation by Oda. This trivia (for example) would be removed - its from the Sea Forest graveyard article: The inspiration for the Sea Forest graveyard might stem from the Japanese forest Aokigahara, also known as the ''Sea of Trees and often referred to as the Forest Of Death. The place is not only a popular tourist destination, but also became infamous for being a prominent place to commit suicide.'' :Option 3 would technically change nothing, thats true. HOWEVER, we would have an agreement that trivia like that is allowed and wanted, instead of constantly battling the super unclear and undefined "speculation" argument. Whatever the final decision will be, the fact that we agreed on one way is the point of this discussion 11:39, May 3, 2011 (UTC) I will note at one point in the past, we did stop non-confirmed trivia, but the speculations were being added faster then I could remove them. I myself am against trivia sections, however, some like having them. I'd rather see sections for related trivia and maintain if there are more then one related trivia is should have a section on the page. However, due to the amount, at some point in the history of the wikia, I had to be more leniant to keep up with things, this was just before I stopped being a reglaur. Every so often I purge the trivia sections even now of some items that shouldn't be there. I honestly have no opinion overall on what should and shouldn't be there. But stuff like "He doesn't have a devil fruit" for Jinbei begs to question who the editor was aiming the trivia at. In fact "Captain Obivous" trivia point was put in to try and stop people writing trivia that felt like it was written for a moron then a reader. I also note the current trivia guidelines were written to explain why something was removed, adressing certain itemsn and explaining where they should actually be. Trivia is the single hardest thing to control on the wikia. I am happy that people are starting to rethink them, they only adressed things that had to be sorted at the time. As a general rule, most of our guidelines were written like that. I do also stress that trivia is the hardest thing to handle and one of the most "facepalm" moments at times. One-Winged Hawk 12:06, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :Speculation posted on the mythbusters page is aimed to debunk the popular speculations and tell the fans what is and isn't known (example the "D"), but mythbusters is not for every speculation under the sun and should never be. Speculation overall is not welcomed on the wikia and certainly has no place in trivia sections, but due to the workload, *some* forms of it had to be allowed because it was really difficult to control trivia at one point. I admit, sometimes I take the micky of the trivia to see if anyone reacts and insert a little bit of my own. I will observe from this my ridiculous trivia posting DOES prove we don't want that kind of speculative trivia on the wikia but why we still let it on here regardless? that I don't know. The vast amounts of it started during 2009, up until that point it was kept a lot more under control. One-Winged Hawk 12:16, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Also, I like to remind everyone while I'm mentioning mythbusters is to act as a information centre to explain to newbie editors why popular myths got removed from a page. I.e. fake bounties. Without it, we loose a quick tool for direction misinformed fans. If it is lost, something else must be put in its place. One-Winged Hawk 12:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)